Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a u t c o n

Understanding and facilitating BIM adoption in the AEC industry

Ning Gu a,⁎, Kerry London b
a
The University of Newcastle, Australia
b
Deakin University, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Building Information Modelling (BIM) is one of the important areas in current Virtual Reality (VR) research.
Accepted 24 January 2010 VR research considers not only the technological development, a very important part of the research also
concerns the application of the technologies and their adoption by the practices. This paper firstly presents an
Keywords:
analysis of the current state of BIM in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry and a re-
Building Information Modelling
assessment of its role and potential contribution in the near future. The paper analyses the readiness of the
Industry adoption
Focused group interviews
industry with respect to the (1) product, (2) processes and (3) people, to position BIM adoption in terms of
Collaborative BIM Decision Framework current status and expectations across disciplines. The findings indicate that there were both technical and
non-technical issues that need consideration. The evidence also suggests that there are varying levels of
adoption and therefore the need for a specific tool to facilitate BIM adoption. The study revealed that even the
market leaders who are early technology adopters in the Australian industry in many cases have varying
degrees of practical experiential knowledge of BIM and hence at times different understandings and different
levels of confidence regarding the future diffusion of BIM technology throughout the industry. There have
been numerous factors affecting BIM adoption, which can be grouped into two main areas: technical tool
functional requirements and needs, and non-technical strategic issues. There are varying levels of adoption
and understanding within countries — from discipline to discipline and client to client. There are also varying
levels of adoption from country to country and although many researchers and practitioners espouse
collaborative working environments there are still challenges to be met in many parts of the world,
particularly, in relation to a fully integrated collaborative multidisciplinary mode of operation. The challenges
for the research community lie not only in addressing the technical solutions or addressing human centred
issues but it is also in creating the enabling environment of a decision framework, which integrates both the
technical and non-technical challenges. The need for guidance on where to start, what tools are available and
how to work through the legal, procurement and cultural challenges was evidenced in the exploratory study.
Therefore the Collaborative BIM Decision Framework has been initiated to facilitate the BIM adoption in the
AEC industry, based upon these industry concerns, which consists of four interrelated key elements. The
findings are drawn from a major research project funded by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for
Construction Innovation (CRC-CI), with a focus on the Australian context.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction VR research considers not only the technological development, a

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an IT enabled approach
that involves applying and maintaining an integral digital represen-
tation of all building information for different phases of the project
lifecycle in the form of a data repository. The building information
involved in the BIM approach can include both geometric data as well
as non-geometric data. BIM is one of the important areas in current
Virtual Reality (VR) research and is expected to envision efficient
collaboration, improved data integrity [12], intelligent documentation
[38], distributed access and retrieval of building data [23] and high-
quality project outcome through enhanced performance analysis, as
well as multidisciplinary planning and coordination [14,19,20].
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ning.gu@newcastle.edu.au (N. Gu).
very important part of the research also concerns the application of
the technologies and their adoption by the practices. In BIM, while the
potential benefits of the technologies may seem evident, the industry
adoption rate of BIM varies. A number of factors such as lack of
awareness and training; fragmented nature of the AEC industry;
industry's reluctance to change existing work practice and hesitation
to learn new concepts and technologies; and the lack of clarity on
roles, responsibilities and distribution of benefits have been identified
as major barriers to BIM adoption in the literature. There has not been
sufficient research on BIM adoption that studies all involved AEC
disciplines collectively. This research applies Focus Group Interviews
(FGIs) as the main research method for data collection. FGIs differ
from surveys and questionnaires that often focus on individual
disciplines. FGIs not only enable the collection of more in-depth
research data on BIM adoption, but they also provide a forum for the

0926-5805/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.002
 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
different disciplines of the AEC industry to share and clarify their
views and for the researchers and research participants to participate
in an ongoing discourse regarding various BIM adoption issues such as
common understanding of benefits, hurdles, requirements and
expectations of BIM.
The FGI analysis indicates that there were both technical and non-
technical issues that need consideration in BIM adoption. The
evidence also suggests that there are varying levels of adoption and
therefore the need for a specific tool to facilitate BIM adoption. The
study revealed that even the market leaders who are early technology
adopters in the Australian industry in many cases have varying
degrees of practical experiential knowledge of BIM and hence at times
different understandings and different levels of confidence regarding
the future diffusion of BIM technology throughout the industry. The
factors affecting BIM adoption can be grouped into two main areas:
technical tool functional requirements and needs, and non-technical
strategic issues. The need for guidance on where to start, what tools
were available and how to work through the legal, procurement and
cultural challenges was evidenced in the exploratory study. Therefore,
the paper develops and presents the Collaborative BIM Decision
Framework as an new approach for facilitating BIM adoption in the
AEC industry, based upon the above industry concerns, which consists
of four interrelated key elements including a strategic purpose and
scoping, work process mapping, identifying technical requirements
for BIM, and collaborator capabilities evaluation.
2. Background study
The background study involves a general review of available BIM
literature together with a desktop audit of current commercial BIM
applications. The BIM literature review provides a context for the
research. The review also offers a comprehensive understanding of
the common practice in the AEC industry, and informs on the
potential issues that may arise during building project development
and collaboration when new technologies are adopted. Desktop audit
of current commercial BIM applications provides a general under-
standing of the different approaches to BIM implementations, which
offers the insight into various common development and trends of
tools supporting BIM, serving as a background study for this research.
2.1. Literature review
A general literature review on BIM is provided to establish a context
of the research. BIM as an emerging research field has limited existing
studies, the literature review therefore goes beyond academic publica-
tions to also include white papers and technical reports from major
vendors of BIM related applications (i.e. [4,6,16,17]), guidelines and
reports generated by government and other regulatory bodies (i.e.
[1,18]), and articles in well respectable online newsletters (i.e. http://
www.aecbytes.com) that reflect on the latest development of BIM.
Though there have been a few examples of adopting BIM or BIM-
related concepts in the real world projects [7,9,30,31], the general rate
of BIM adoption has been slow. Lack of initiative and training [8],
fragmented nature of the AEC industry [24], varied market readiness
across geographies, and industry's reluctance to change existing work
practice [24] have been regarded as some of the reasons. These
identified issues have also been echoed by Khemlani [27,28]. In an
industry where most projects are handled in multidisciplinary and
multi-organisational teams, the lack of clarity on roles, responsibil-
ities, and distribution of benefits in adopting the BIM approach is an
important inhibiting factor [21].
From a technical aspect, a recent survey by AECbytes [32] provides
a good overview of the current status of BIM in the AEC industry. Some
of the findings from the earlier studies have also been reinforced in
this survey result. The major findings of the survey are listed below.
989
• In most common practices, collaboration is still primarily based on
the exchange of 2D drawings, despite most disciplines are now
working in 3D environments.
• There has been a greater demand for more advance and compre-
hensive object libraries and modelling capabilities in computer
packages.
• There has been an increasing demand for technologies that support
distributed teamwork.
• Tool preference varies with the size of the organisation: in general,
smaller firms often prefer more intuitive project environments.
Larger firms that are more likely to be involved in complex and large
scale projects prefer tools with greater flexibility in customising
project environments.
• 3D visualisation is not a major concern: most users participated the
survey value the accurate building information model than
visualisation.
• There is an urgent need for better training materials and technical
support.
• Support for analysis, performance simulation and data interopera-
bility are important, but are not burning issues as per the survey.
2.2. Desktop audit
A desktop audit of different types of commercial BIM applications
has been conducted, which involves live demonstrations and trials,
data collection from product brochures (i.e. [13,15,35]) and analysis of
tools as published by other influential sources (i.e. http://www.
aecbytes.com; [10,39]). Categories of applications that have been
evaluated include BIM model servers, discipline specific design tools,
planning tools, analysis tools, design review and viewing tools, facility
management tools, product libraries and so on. The desktop audit
provides an overview of the technological capabilities and limitations
of the applications and their roles in BIM, as well as indicates the
development trends of commercial BIM applications. The main issues
identified from the desktop audit are highlighted below.
2.2.1. Overall status
A wide range of applications are currently available for various
purposes that form a part of the BIM approach ranging from
application suites to very specific tools for design, analysis and
product libraries [29]. There is a rapid growth in the number of
supporting technologies, and only a few of which are Industry
Foundation Classes (IFC) compatible [26,27], which means they can
only be integrated with specific tools that accept their data formats.
Tools for early design phases and integration of conceptualisation
tools are lacking at the moment [37]: the popular design tools such as
ArchiCAD, Autodesk Revit and Bentley are generally inadequate in
supporting conceptual design.
2.2.2. New trends
web-based product services can be very useful and efficient for the AEC
industry [9,22] and their numbers are growing, benefiting from the recent
trends such as the development and application of object-oriented
modelling has gained a widespread acceptance within the industry. The
concept of object intelligence in building modelling has brought
associativities and relationships between objects and between their
properties, within building models. More importantly, they support
modelling constraints [11,33] that enabled the emergence of more
efficient analysis tools [5,34] to automate various processes, which are so
far primarily manual and time consuming.
2.2.3. Lack of supports for integration
Examples of BIM in practice suggest that in the present state there
are indeed technologies available, which can potentially improve the
work process. However, the lack of tools supporting the integration of
different project phases has been a major concern [21,29]. As more
990 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
specific BIM applications are being developed targeting specific
processes and aspects of the project, and more importantly allowing
the integration with other applications and with other processes, the
supports for integration should be improved in order to cope with the
demand.
3. Understanding BIM Adoption Using FGIs
The main findings on BIM adoption within the AEC industry build
on the earlier research of BIM adoption but by applying Focus Group
Interviews (FGIs) as the main research method of data collection. FGIs
differ from surveys and questionnaires because they not only enable
the collection of more in-depth data on BIM adoption, but they also
provide a forum for the different disciplines within the AEC industry
to share and clarify their views on various BIM adoption issues such as
common understanding of benefits, hurdles, requirements and
expectations of BIM. A coding scheme has been specifically designed
to analyse the FGI data.
Like any research, the reported study has limitations. We highlight
the following limitations in order to frame the context of the research
findings:
• The nature of the FGI method enables the collection of more in-
depth information on the topic studied, at the same time, it also
limits the number of participants compared to quantitative methods
such as questionnaries. Therefore it is argued that the findings from
FGIs are possible to be influecd by the subjective views of the
participants.
• Although the FGI participants recruited for the research are key
players from different AEC disciplines who have been involved in
building projects of different scales and with internatinal relevances
(i.e. developing projects for both Australian and overseas markets as
well as participating in the international collaboration), neverthe-
less, as the FGIs were conducted within Australia with most
participants being based in Australia, the findings therefore may
be influenced by the specific perception and culture of practices in
the region.
3.1. Focus group interviews
Two FGIs have been conducted in two major Australian capital cities
Sydney and Brisbane. Through these FGIs, the research team was able to
gather important players and associates that cover all major sectors of
the AEC industry, including architects, engineers, contractors, design
consultants, construction/facility manager information technology
service providers, project managers, facility managers, delegates from
government agencies, software application vendors and academics.
With the active participation of these representatives, the main goal of
the FGIs is to uncover and analyse the industry perception of BIM
adoption across different disciplines. Discussions in FGIs as confirmed in
the earlier BIM literature review suggest that the reasons for the varying
adoption rate of BIM in the AEC industry are not only technological.
Other factors that influence BIM adoption include: work practice,
organisational structure, business interest, user training and so on. It has
also been recognised that the adoption of BIM would require a different
approach to building data organisation and structuring. Some legal and
contractual measures will as well be required to deal with work practice
and security related issues.
The FGIs were recorded on tapes and then segmented. The
segmented data were analysed firstly using an open analysis to
identify main themes. Based on the main themes identified a coding
scheme was developed and applied to the segmented data for detailed
analysis. Each FGI gathers Australian and international leading
organisations that have adopted BIM to a certain extent in a group
environment for moderated discussions lasting approximately two to
three hours. The discussions were chaired by the research team. The
two FGIs involved 21 participants in total. Break-up of the discipline-
wise representation and participation is shown in Fig. 1.
Participation is measured as the frequency of issues raised or
discussed by representatives of a specific discipline. Through the
analysis of the FGI discussions, the industry needs, concerns and
expectation regarding BIM adoption have been identified. The FGI
discussions show that the level of BIM awareness, knowledge and
interest across the disciplines differ, nevertheless the main issues
affecting BIM adoption are often shared across disciplines. These
issues are presented in Section 4.
3.2. Coding scheme
The coding scheme applied for the FGI analysis has been developed
based on the dominant themes identified through the initial open
analysis of the FGI data and the background study. The coding scheme
have been applied to (1) identify the priority issues across different AEC
disciplines regarding BIM adoption; and to (2) understand the current
level of awareness, knowledge and interest of BIM across the disciplines.
The coding scheme has five main categories: Discipline, Context,
Type, Content, and Keywords. These categories and their sub-
categories (if applicable) are shown in Fig. 2. Comment is used for
the research team to record observations that worth noting during the
FGI discussions or data segmentation and analysis.
Knowledge on BIM varies across different disciplines within the
AEC industry. Discipline category is used to code the FGI data based on
the disciplinary and functional background (roles in the industry) of
the speaker. The marking of each segment, based on the disciplinary
background of the speaker, gives useful information about the
importance of the different aspects of BIM (in terms of the content)
within each discipline.
Context category is used to mark the circumstances under which a
given segment of data has been discussed. Classifications within
Context category include:
• “Initiated” sub-category is marked if the segment of data started a
new subject of discussion in the FGIs.
• “Reply” sub-category is marked if the segment of data answered a
question posted earlier in the FGIs.
• “Follow up” sub-category is marked if the segment of data
contributed to an ongoing subject initiated earlier in the FGIs.
• “Chair” sub-category is marked if the segment of data was given by
the moderator to control the flow of discussion.
For the FGI analysis, the above sub-categories can imply the
following:
• A subject initiated by a specific discipline is in general expected to be
in higher priority for that very discipline. For example, the
discussion on the lack of supports for conceptual design in BIM
was initiated by an architect, and therefore it can be considered as
an important concerns for the architecture and design discipline.
• Most often, the identification of a discipline which replies to a
specific question can suggest that the discipline has knowledge or at
Discipline wise representation Discipline wise participation
Contractors
Engineer
Architect
Academic
BIM consultant
Application vendor
FM
Fig. 1. Discipline-wise representation and participation in the two FGIs.
 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
least has awareness of the specific topic. For example, when various
questions about data security on BIM model server were raised, the
replies mostly came from the application vendors.
• “Follow up” allows identification of other disciplines that participate
in the discussion of a specific topic. For a discipline that has not
participated in a specific topic at all, it may suggest the lack of
knowledge, relevance or interest for that particular discipline on the
specific topic. For example, the discussion on tool supports for the
conceptual design phase has very little or no participation of the
contractors and civil engineers, while the main participants are
architects, application vendors and academics, which may indicate
there is a lack of interest of conceptual design supports in BIM from
the contractors and engineers.
• “Chair” marked segments mean that the statement is used to
moderate the discussion.
Type category is used to classify the segmented data based on the
perceived purpose of the statement. The sub-categories for Type are:
“suggestion/idea”, “concern”, “opinion/viewpoint”, “observation/
analysis”, “query”, “inform”, “strategy” and “wishlist”.
The different classifications within Content category of the coding
scheme is expected to enable the clustering of data in order to identify
issues being discussed based on different aspects of BIM. Content category
can therefore identify dominant topics by clustering the segmented data
based on the subjects of discussions. There can be at least eight sub-
categories within the Content category. They are “technical”, “cultural/
work practice”, “structural/data organization”, “training”, “legal/contrac-
tual”, “organizational-team”, “process/method”, and “business case”.
Discipline, Context and Type categories can be combined together
in order to cluster the segmented data such that the pattern of BIM
awareness, knowledge and interest across related disciplines can be
identified.
Finally, marking Keywords allows the identification of key issues
across all categories, and the priority of these key issues can also be set
by evaluating the frequency of their data occurrence. For example, the
categorisation may suggest that technological issues are the most
prevalent topics in discussion, or that there are more concerns on data
management issues by architects and application vendors. A detailed
analysis suggests that most concerns on BIM data structure and
organisation are related to version management. This is done by
listing the keywords of each data segment. In this case, version
management as a keyword has the highest frequency of occurrence.
Similarly, other specific issues within each coding category can also be
Table 1
Example of coding data segments.
Comment/segment
“…(the) frustrating part is having different regulations across states”.
“How do we get one agreed standard?”
“Force them to do that ...”
991
Fig. 2. The coding scheme.
identified such that we can set priorities for these aspects to be further
examined.
Examples of coded segments are shown below in Table 1 to
demonstrate the use of the coding scheme and its categories.
In the first segment shown in Table 1, a design manager from the
civil engineering discipline started this particular topic of discussion,
which is a concern related to legal and contractual issues based on his
observation from the practice. Accordingly a value of “1” is added
under each of the relevant coding categories or sub-categories.
Similarly each other data segment is coded and marked. By counting
the number of “1” marked against each coding category or sub-
categories the total number of data segments that fall under each
categories or sub-categories can be obtained. This coding scheme
enables the analysis and comparison of the collected FGI data.
Keywords are noted and grouped under common themes. The
number of occurrences for each theme can be noted to prioritise the
key issues. By applying this coding scheme for data analysis, the
prioritised key issues across different AEC disciplines regarding BIM
adoption can be identified. The ananysis can also offer insights on the
level of awareness, knowledge and interest of BIM across all AEC
disciplines.
4. BIM adoption in the AEC industry
By applying the coding scheme presented above, three different
kinds of correlations can be mapped from the collected FGI data. The
Discipline vs. Content mapping can suggests the dominant issues
regarding BIM adoption across different disciplines; the Type vs.
Content mapping indicates BIM awareness, knowledge and interest
about the content; and the Discipline vs. Type mapping indicates BIM
awareness, knowledge and interest across different disciplines. These
three types of correlation mappings together with the key issues
emerged from the analysis will be presented below.
4.1. Data correlation mappings
The correlation mapping of the data segments shows that the level of
awareness, knowledge and interest on BIM adoption across different
AEC disciplines vary quite significantly. Fig. 3 shows the Discipline vs.
Content mapping. Architects and application vendors were the two
most active groups with their discussions primarily focusing on
technical, process/method, cultural/work practice related issues.
Discipline Context Type Content Keyword
Engineer/design manager Initiated Observation Legal/contractual Regulations
Contractor Follow up Query Culture/work practice Standard
Engineer/design manager Reply Opinion/strategy Culture/work practice Force
992 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
60
50
40
Discipline
30
20
10
0
technical cultural/ work structuring /
practice Data
organization
Fig. 3. Content discussed across disciplines.
• Technical aspects of BIM were the dominant subjects in both FGIs.
Most of the technical discussions from the architects and BIM
consultants are related to concerns, queries and suggestions,
demonstrating their strong interests in BIM but also a possible
lack of practical knowledge in applying current technologies.
• Most of process/method and cultural/work practice related discus-
sions were concerns, suggestions and information sharing, demon-
strating a keen interest across discipline in BIM adoption but a
general lack of knowledge in terms of how it may fit into each of
their current practice. Design disciplines discussed more on these
issues than any other disciplines.
• Application vendors mostly provide information on technical
aspects of BIM applications, often in response to queries and
concerns of other disciplines, suggesting a lack of awareness
amongst other industry players.
The similar technique was applied to develop the Type vs. Content
and the Discipline vs. Type mappings. From the Type vs. Content
mapping, the following observations are highlighted:
• Concerns are primarily on the technical, cultural/work practice and
process/method related issues, with the technical concerns topping
the list.
• In both FGIs a significant part of the discussions on the technical
aspects of BIM centres on providing and sharing information
(“inform” sub-category), quite often involved the application vendors.
• The strategies discussed are mainly concerning technical, process/
method and business case related issues.
• In numerous occasions, participants confirm that both technical as
well as process/method related issues are key to the development and
implementation of BIM, especially important for project collaboration.
From the Discipline vs. Type mapping, the following observations
are highlighted.
• Among all participated disciplines, architects were once again the
most active group. They top the list in stating their opinions
(“opinion/viewpoint” sub-category) about BIM in general. The
issues are mainly technical, structuring/data organisation, and
process/method related.
• Most of the concerns were also raised by the architects. They were
also interested in discussing strategies in both FGIs.
Contractor
Engineer
Architect
Academic
BIM consultant
Application vendor
training legal/ organizational- process/ Business case
contractual team method
Content
• Application vendors spent most of their time providing and sharing
information (“inform” sub-categories). One particular vendor also
spent considerable amount of time discussing strategies, primarily
related to BIM model servers from a service point of view.
• Beyond the active participation of the above two disciplines, design
managers also participated generously by providing information on
current processes and work practice.
4.2. Key issues
The key issues discussed during the FGIs are grouped based on
their relevance to the content code sub-categories. Some overlaps are
possible because they are listed in the order of their importance as
reflected in the FGI analysis.
4.2.1. Work practice and process related issue
4.2.1.1. Data organisation. Digital storage is the current dominant form
of data storage as it allows greater flexibility and economy of physical
space. Therefore, digital data management and organisation is
becoming ever important for the industry, particularly from the
work practice perspective. Standard practices and procedures need to
be developed to address data representation, usability, classification
and grouping; as well as to deal with possible data explosion. Version
management, as singled out below is one of the most important issues
being discussed, which is closely related to data organisation.
4.2.1.2. Version management. There are three different version
management issues being discussed.
• When application vendors develop a new version of the application,
sometimes there are significant differences from the previous
versions. This brings in problems such as data loss and compatibility
issues if different versions of the software are used by different team
members.
• Version of project data: if BIM is to be adopted using an integral
database where each discipline maintains, modifies and updates the
data, then technical measures, work procedures and methods need to
be put in place to ensure data integrity, allowing different versions of
the project data to be managed throughout the project life-cycle.
 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
• Version of IFC: at present the IFC standards are still evolving, and the
format has changed significantly in the last five years often making
many of the earlier IFC data almost unreadable in the present IFC
version. Technicians or service providers who maintain the IFC data
may have to update the stored data accordingly. Such updates may
not be easy if the changes are significant.
4.2.1.3. Validation and data integrity. Even though 2D drawings can be
generated from intelligent 3D models [33], the lack of trust on
completeness and accuracy of 3D models has remained a major
concern for the practitioners involved. As a result, data exchange
across the disciplines is limited to 2D drawings. Development of
intelligent model checkers for ensuring integration qualities, which is
an important aspect of BIM approach, may be able to address the
concern. However, agreed protocols, and standard evaluation and
validation procedures are needed for acceptable design reviews and
approvals using 3D models.
4.2.1.4. As-built data. Ability to support facility management is
considered as an important value-added feature for the BIM approach,
making a strong business case as suggested by the FGI participants.
The information stored and maintained during the project is useful for
later access and retrieval. This database is useful in updating and
identifying the information needed for maintaining the building
facilities. However, in most construction projects, changes are often
made during the construction phase. Hence, the final output may have
some variations from the initial design, which will need to be
represented and recognised in the BIM model. At present, there is no
process in place of updating the designed model to incorporate the
changes made during construction. This is particularly important
because it is the actual as-built information, which is required for
facility management.
4.2.2. Technical issues
4.2.2.1. Standards. Interoperability issues across different commercial
software remain a dominant topic during the FGIs. Shortcomings in
IFC certification of commercial software were highlighted. Issues
discussed echo the findings reported by [3].
Most product libraries that are commercially available target
specific commercial applications with a wide market base, for
example, Autodesk Revit. This means that such libraries cannot be
shared or used by other packages. Besides a standard format for data
exchange, there is a greater need for standard vocabulary for the
consistency of data when exporting from one package to another.
4.2.2.2. Registry of communication and information exchange. Informa-
tion exchanged between the BIM users through different media is not
generally captured in a BIM model. During the FGIs, participants
suggest that BIM servers should allow message flagging and
notifications between team members. Though not explicitly dis-
cussed, some of the ideas discussed are similar to the concepts of an
Enterprise Wiki [25].
4.2.2.3. Security. Apprehensions exist about data security of model
servers. These include concerns about Intellectual Property (IP) and
protection of copyrights. Concerns related to network security may
have technical limitations, but concerns on design protection (IP and
copyright issues) can be alleviated by greater awareness and legal
measures. IP issues in BIM are legal issues, which are no different to IP
issues existing in current practices.
4.2.3. Other issues
4.2.3.1. Roles and responsibilities. The BIM approach requires changes
in distribution of roles and responsibilities. Some traditional roles
993
such as draftsmen may become obsolete, replaced by modellers. New
roles, such as BIM managers have emerged to support greater
coordination in developing and maintaining an integrated BIM model.
4.2.3.2. Training support. Participants raised concerns on the lack of
training and awareness on BIM applications. Improved and up-to-date
training modules are required for practitioners as well as students.
CAD courses taught at architecture and engineering schools do not
complement the present industry needs. In most architecture schools
CAD courses are separated from the design studio, and the design
methodology taught in schools often fails to integrate CAD in the
design phase. Although some alternative approaches such as
parametric design have been introduced as digital means to
conceptual design, such cases are still limited. The workshop analysis
also indicates the lack of teaching staff with knowledge and
experience of modern CAD packages and the reluctance of adopting
new technologies and their uses in the curriculum.
Students also need to be trained in applying computer-supported
collaborative tools in team projects to appreciate the collaborative
nature of projects as well as understand and experience the potential
benefits. In practice, building professionals work in a team and often
coordinate team activities. In design and engineering schools
although students also involve in limited team projects, the
coordination of team projects is normally manual, face-to-face and
within the single design discipline. Students need to be trained to
explore state-of-the-art computer-supported collaborative tools and
to collaborate across disciplines.
Apart from the key issues discussed by the FGI participants, the
analysis of the data suggests that even though there is a general
agreement on the potential benefits of BIM for all AEC disciplines, the
actual benefits and usability of the approach is not clear. There is lack
of clarity on how BIM can be integrated with the current business
practice. There is a common misconception among the participants
that the entire work practice has to be changed for the BIM approach
to be adopted. This is primarily because the users fail to realise that
BIM approach can be used for only parts of the project lifecycle to suit
different scenarios. That is, industry players often do not realise the
flexible scope of BIM in an AEC project.
Different business models will be required to suit varied industry
needs [40]. BIM model can be maintained in-house or outsourced to
service providers. In the later case additional legal measures and
agreements will be required to ensure data security and user confidence.
5. Collaborative BIM Decision Framework
Amongst the main findings of BIM adoption as reported above, the
FGI analysis reveals that the AEC industry's overall lack of experience
in BIM, has led to their limited understanding and articulation of
industry needs and technical requirements for BIM. Presently there is
limited use and hence limited knowledge of BIM and their integration
in the AEC industry in Australia. The lack of awareness means that
direct inputs on technical requirements and industry needs cannot be
sufficiently obtained from the industry. Such lack of industry inputs is
hindering the advancement and adoption of BIM related technologies,
which are yet to mature. Hence a Collaborative BIM Decision
Framework has been developed in order for the industry players to
relate their likely BIM adoption with their familiar experiences on
existing collaboration tools from their current practice.
The significance of BIM implementation is not a new challenge. It
has been identified that implementation and human centred issues
were the key drawback to widescale adoption [2,3,36] and that
particularly “... there is currently a need to develop methods and tools,
which facilitate the transformation of these sophisticated technolo-
gies into practical uses within the industry” [2]. Most critical to the
approach adopted in our study Aravic et al. [2] in particular continue
this argument by suggesting that “...it is claimed that there is a need
994 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
for the development of human centred, adaptive systems through
industry-wide information sharing” [33]. Furthermore, they have
suggested that it is necessary to identify development techniques and
methodologies that would lead to the user centred, adaptive software
systems in close collaboration with the construction stakeholders. On
the other hand, experts from industry have stressed that IT
researchers should align with the practitioners when developing
and proposing IT solutions to the industry. Due to the identified gap
between the research community and practitioners, there is still lack
of communication and shared understanding incurred amongst them
[2]. They focused on the early stages of projects in particular client
briefing and design management yet supported the notion of
solutions for the entire construction supply chain. Our work builds
upon this and attempts to really map concerns of users, producers and
owners of models within a fully integrated online collaborative
environment and in particular focuses on the challenges of model
servers to support implementation.
The following is a summary of the key elements of the decision
framework, which was developed over a period of 18 months based
upon a grounded theoretical research approach with elements of an
action oriented research study methodology. There were a series of
workshops and interviews to gather data to develop the framework
followed by another series of workshops and FGIs to present the
findings and the developmental stages of the framework and then a
final presentation to key industry participants. This is an ongoing
research and the decision framework has industry participants who
shall implement/adapt the framework in varying levels and modes to
suit their own organisational needs. The framework has only just been
completed and the future research will involve analysis of refine-
ments and father implementations. The intention is for the framework
to be institutionalised within the national guidelines that are being
developed for BIM implementation.
The implications of BIM adoption require changes to four key
interrelated domains including; work processes, resourcing, scope/
project initiation and tool mapping. Particularly, each of these four
elements is influenced by the phase of the project life cycle, the
purpose of BIM relates to project requirements, stakeholder needs and
collaborator capabilities.
The Collaborative BIM Decision Framework is used to facilitate BIM
adoption through informed selection of tools based upon project
collaborators’ readiness, tool capabilities and workflow dependencies
and cogniscant of the potential to integrate and collaborate across all
phases of the project life cycle. The focus of the decision framework
tends towards the technical requirements however early and concerted
attention to the non-technical strategic project and organisational
decision is critical to provide the necessary supporting cultural and
business environment for BIM adoption, as revealed in the FGI analysis.
The Collaborative BIM Decision Framework provides the informa-
tion aimed at those who are BIM “ready” or actively implementing
BIM including those industry participants who would tend to be at
Level 1, 2 and 3 according to the following levels (RAIA, 2009)
• Level 0: CAD (Computer-aided Design) based (2D and 3D) - design
disciplines who are designing, documenting and creating visualisa-
tions but who have not yet fully embraced object-oriented
modelling and the concept of embedded information and/or
appended/linked object information.
• Level 1: modelling — single disciplinary use of object-oriented 3D
modelling software within one discipline.
• Level 2: collaboration — sharing of object-oriented models between
two or more disciplines.
• Level 3: integration — integration of several multidisciplinary
models using BIM model servers with the ultimate aim of moving
from local servers to a web based environment.
The decision framework is aimed at multidisciplinary industry
participation at Level 3 Integration; however there are varying levels
of adoption and so in effect it is also aimed at moving participants at
lower levels towards Level 3 integration.
The decision framework provides a project life cycle view to
support all industry participants including design and non-design
discipline. The aim is to present a way forward to bring together the
CAD and DMS (Document Management System) perspectives of BIM
technologies to attempt to realise the full potential of BIM imple-
mentation by including models with embedded information, and also
appended and linked information. The decision framework provides
information for industry players to understand the full resource
implications of BIM technologies on projects and the impact of their
decision making on BIM implementation.
The diffusion of innovative technologies is influenced by the
positive experiences of adopters and the ability to modify the
technologies to suit individual organisations’ own needs to success-
fully maintain and/or enhance business competitive advantages. This
means that the decision framework needs to be customised for
individual organisations or unique projects. As such the decision
framework is intended to be adapted by the following organisations to
suit both their organisational requirements and project requirements:
• Clients/project managers/facility managers - those who make
decisions about BIM implementation, and can influence resourcing
for project teams.
• Architects, engineering consultants, quantity surveyors, design man-
agers, specialist subcontractors, manufacturers and materials suppli-
ers and logisticians and so on, who may not make project decisions but
create, update, review, collaborate and integrate models.
• Senior technical officers, managers and executives of organisations
who make decisions about technological investment, human
resourcing, project bidding and organisational strategic direction.
There are four key parts in the decision framework including:
• Defining scope, purpose, roles, relationships and project phases:
critical early decisions are required at the outset of project and/or
organisational implementation to enable a supportive business and
cultural environment for streamlined data flow and management
within a well informed enterprise.
• Developing work process roadmaps: guidelines for understanding,
defining and describing the work process within and across
organisations to guide seamless integration of BIM as a part of
everyday business.
• Identifying technical requirements of BIM: the comprehensive
knowledge of commercial BIM applications and their capabilities
is important. Tools and levels of interoperability are dynamic and
therefore project requirements need to be defined at the outset. In
order to reach Level 3 Integration stage, BIM implementation
requirements regarding tool compatibility for multidisciplinary
model sharing and model servers become necessary.
• Customisation of the framework and evaluating skills, knowledge
and capabilities: the evaluation of current skills, knowledge and
capabilities is required in order to be equipped for BIM adoption.
5.1. Part 1: defining scope, purpose, roles, relationships and project phases
The purpose of developing BIM needs to be clearly defined at the
outset. There can be a spectrum of implementation from a complex
fully integrated multidisciplinary BIM with online collaboration and
with real time updating across every phase of a project's life cycle, to
individual disciplinary BIM as standalone models specific to phases,
sub phases or activities within a phase. Each project will have
different requirements and thus a specification of the purpose is
required, supported by a well thought out business plan. The
following matrix shown in Table 2 is a guideline and needs to be
adapted to suit individual project procurement strategies. The matrix
can be developed from a project perspective or from an individual
 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
collaborator's perspective. For example, if the client funds the BIM
they may wish to receive a fully operational facility management
model which they can use for operations and maintenance and
community marketing, where as a contractor funded model, may
focus on detailed design analysis, design review, alternative con-
struction methods, construction information flow, safety features.
Another matrix, which focuses on decisions related to strategic
technical requirements, is under development.
5.2. Part 2: developing work process roadmaps
Key questions that need to be considered here are to understand,
define and describe the work process within and across organisations,
for example:
• What are the project phases that the organisation is involved in?
• What are the activities in each of the phases? e.g., modelling,
visualisation, detailing, design review, and etc.
• What are the dependencies between the activities? This can be
evaluated using the Design Structure Matrix [41]. Activities can have
mutual dependency (interdependent), asymmetric dependency
(one activity is dependent on the other but not the other way
round) or no dependency (independent).
• Who are the industry players? e.g. design manager, architect, and
etc. What are the required resources? e.g., tools, knowledge, and etc.
The list of players and resources needed in each of the phases must
be identified and their dependencies noted. This allows the checking
of possible work flows and requirements for information exchange
and data transfer.
For demonstration purposes, Fig. 4 provides an example of a high
level roadmap for BIM implementation for the design manager of a
construction firm aligned with their current design management
processes during the project life cycle. The roadmap is suited to a
contractor led BIM scenario. There are two key issues to consider. First
Table 2
Scoping activities, purpose and phase matrix — non-technical requirements.
Scoping activities
8 Non-technical strategic steps
1. Identify purpose(s), extent of BIM and map to project phases
2. Define model ownership, funding source, owner requirements,
management structure, and boundaries of responsibilities for model
and/or submodels for all project phases including:
Contractual roles
Obligations and protocols for model management
Interrelationships between collaborators
3. Develop business plan for BIM integration including financial and
time constraints and appropriate resourcing for training and support
4. Integrate design consultants model developers with document
management systems managers
5. Undertake scoping analysis of collaborator competencies
according to capability Levels 0-3
6. Conduct BIM adoption workshops for selected senior executive and
project level participants towards developing a collaborative
culture and creating a BIM communication strategy to raise
awareness and identify conflicts
7. Develop BIM technical support levels for collaborators:
Level 1: start up training for inexperienced collaborators
Level 2: tool and model server support for collaborators
Level 3: long term education related to knowledge
management strategy
8. Develop knowledge management strategy for capturing learning
for future BIM integration projects
995
that other project champions and actors would have their own process
map depending upon their involvements and the type of procurement
relationships and associated roles and responsibilities required. Second
that there are additional layers of detail for each individual project
phase and major processes identified in the roadmap in Fig. 4, which
would involve descriptions of step by step activities, players, deliver-
ables, resources, risks and indicators for success.
5.3. Part 3: identifying technical requirements of BIM
A comprehensive understanding of the available commercial BIM
applications and their capabilities is important. Firms can hire consultants
to perform such desktop audit. Alternatively, government agencies that
incline to promote BIM adoption in the AEC industry can maintain such
audit reports that can be availed by the industry practitioners. The report
can be summarised as a look-up chart as shown in Fig. 5.
The tool-activity matrix lists the activities that are supported by the
tools listed in matrix. For example, In Fig. 5, Product 2 can be used for
both the Activities 2 and 3, while Product 1 can only be used for Activity
1. BIM tool-compatibility chart shows combinations that are compatible.
Cells with regular cross (Activity 6) means there are no BIM tools
available for these activities. Cells with dotted cross (Activity 1 in
Combination 2) means that given the other tools being used (Product 2
for Activities 2 and 3) in the same project, there are no BIM tools for
Activity 1 that is compatible with Product 2. A blank cell (Activities 4 and
5 in Combination 3) means that in that combination the given activity
was not considered to be performed using BIM.
The chart demonstrates that different combinations should be
possible and the scope of BIM usage can be flexible in terms of project
phases, i.e. some phases and activities may not be considered for BIM
usage at all. Further research is currently being conducted which
includes a controlled testing of BIM applications for project collabo-
ration across disciplines. Challenges associated with constructing each
initiation
Project
design
Concept
design
Developed
documentation
Bid
Tendering
Construct
Commission
Occupation
Refurbishment
Purpose
Community marketing
Client presentations
Discipline design sub-models
Interdisciplinary design collaboration
Multidisciplinary design collaboration
Design review
Design analysis
Subcontractor tendering
Construction information management
Facilities management operations
Facilities management maintenance
996 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999

Fig. 4. Managing design process roadmap.

discipline-specific model, including architectural, hydraulic and The purpose and scoping activity of Part 1 guides the decisions
lighting models, and more importantly merging and sharing these related specifically decisions made in Part 3. For example, which
discipline-specific models into an integrated BIM model. activities and phases the organisation intends to support using BIM?

No BIM tools available for this activity

Given other tools in the same project no compatible tools for this activity

Decision not to use a BIM application for the given activity

Fig. 5. Tool-activity matrix (top), and BIM tool-compatibility chart (bottom).

 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999 997

Fig. 6. BIM model server implementation using the decision framework.

Do the selected activities confirm to the activity dependency • IF there are plans to use BIM for dependent activity THEN related
requirements? In general, the following rules can be applied: independent activity should be conducted using BIM.

• IF there are plans to use BIM for one of the mutually dependent
activities THEN all of those mutually dependent activities should be
conducted using BIM.
• In the case of asymmetrical dependency:
• IF there are plans to use BIM for non-dependent activity THEN
related dependent activity can be conducted with or without
BIM.
For example, modelling is not dependent on design review but
design review is dependent on modelling. Hence, if it is decided in the
project that a BIM application will be used for design review (e.g.
automated clash detection) of specific disciplines then the models for
the relevant disciplines must be developed using a package support-
ing BIM integration. However, if the project team decide to use BIM
applications for modelling, they can still conduct the design review in
998 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
the traditional way, though that may mean some of the benefits of an
intelligent model are not exploited. Finally:
• IF activities are perfectly independent THEN use of BIM application
is optional.
5.4. Part 4: Customising Collaborative BIM Decision Framework
Key decisions need to be made early on when embarking upon
BIM for a project related to resourcing for training and support. A
necessary step is to evaluate capability both current and potential.
Questions to consider during this evaluation would include:
• What are the capabilities of the project participants in BIM usage?
• Specifically, what are their current levels, the level required on this
project and potential to move to the required level if not currently
with such capacities?
• What are the training and support implications for key participants?
• What tools do they possess, and what can be procured for the given
project?
• Can BIM be adopted in-house or will an external consultant or
service be required?
• What has been the past experience working with each of the project
partners?
When working through the Collaborative BIM Decision Framework
organisations should consider how it can best be incorporated into
their project. There are so many different scenarios on projects that it
is nearly impossible to account for all the different decisions that
would be needed to implement a BIM model server. Fig. 6 displays a
flow chart of the process that an organisation charged with the
responsibility of setting up a BIM model server should follow when
integrating the material in the framework.
What to implement, how to implement, who funds, and etc are all
questions that model owners will need to grapple with. Many of the
activities discussed in the framework are common sense — whilst others
are quite technical. Leadership is required in the early stages of a project.
It is suggested in the framework that a BIM manager is required and
with strong support from senior executives and the client — in time such
an explicit role may not be necessary. One of the research challenges is
that there is little experience to draw from in the industry and so with
many innovations it takes time to become more widely adopted. Such a
step wide and systematic approach advocated in this framework will
more than likely not be necessary once the BIM approach has been in use
and have become an accepted practice. Further to this, it was strongly
advised that the decision framework is incorporated online as an
additional tool within the BIM model server environment and various
charts/forms/matrices are customized to suit specific project and/or
organisational needs; along with any national guidelines and/or codes of
practice that have been developed. With increased knowledge will
come increased diffusion of the use of BIM model servers. The
implementation of a BIM model server environment to support fully
integrated multidisciplinary BIM implementation will require resources
from organisations as well as resources from a project and this will
always be a challenge for implementation.
6. Conclusion
This paper discusses the understandings and facilitation of BIM
adoption through a FGI analysis and the development of the
Collaborative BIM Decision Framework. With the clearer identifica-
tion and gradual increase of various business drivers [40], such as
initiatives for changes due to the needs of sustainable design and
construction, integral support of as-built data for facilities manage-
ment or more inclusive multidisciplinary collaboration, the broader
adoption of BIM in the AEC industry is very promising.
We summarise the perception and expectation of BIM against the
industry's current practice, in terms of the following three main
aspects: product, process and people:
6.1. In terms of product
Expectations from BIM vary across disciplines. Design disciplines
see BIM as an extension to CAD, while contractors and project
managers expect BIM to be a more intelligent DMS that can extract
data from CAD packages directly for analysis, time sequence and cash
flow modelling and simulation and risk scenario planning. While
there are evident overlaps, BIM application vendors seem to be aiming
to integrate the two requirements. Our desktop audit suggests that
the existing BIM applications are not yet completely mature for either
purpose. Users such as designers, with CAD background, are expecting
BIM to support integrated visualisation and navigation that is
comparable to the native applications they use. Users such as
contractors and project managers, with DMS background, expect
visualisation and navigation to be an important feature of BIM that is
missing in existing DMS solutions. Interestingly, barring a few
exceptions current studies mostly have emphasised BIM as an
enhancement to CAD and downplayed the document management
aspects. This could possibly be the result of investigations concen-
trated towards design disciplines. Discussions in the two FGIs also
suggest that industry participants are hesitant in discussing new and
technical jargons in general.
6.2. In terms of process
BIM adoption would require a change in the existing work
practice. An integrated model development needs greater collabora-
tion and communication across disciplines. A different approach to
model development is needed in a collaborative setting where
multiple parties contribute to a single shared model. Standard
processes and agreed protocols are required to assign responsibilities
and conduct design reviews and validation. Experience from DBMS
(Database Management System) will be useful for data organisation
and management, but the practices will need to develop their own
data management practices to suit their team structure and project
requirements.
Most critically though projects will not succeed if different
business models and BIM model ownership challenges are not
addressed that suit the varied industry needs. BIM model can be
maintained in-house or outsourced to service providers. In the later
case additional legal measures and agreements will be required to
ensure data security and user confidence.
6.3. In terms of people
New roles and relationships within the project teams are
emerging. Dedicated roles such as BIM manager will be inevitable
for large scale projects, as already seem in some real world scenarios.
Team members need appropriate training and information to be able
to contribute and participate in the changing work environment.
The FGI analysis indicates that there are both technical and non-
technical issues that needed consideration in BIM adoption. There
were numerous factors affecting BIM adoption, which mainly fall into
two areas: technical tool functional requirements and needs, and non-
technical strategic issues. The need for guidance on where to start,
what tools are available and how to work through the legal,
procurement and cultural challenges have been evidenced in the
exploratory study. Therefore the Collaborative BIM Decision Frame-
work have been subsequently developed and presented, based upon
the industry concerns. It is acknowledged that there are limitations to
this research study, most particularly the testing of the decision
framework on case study projects. However the contribution to the
 N. Gu, K. London / Automation in Construction 19 (2010) 988–999
body of knowledge of BIM implementation in this study is through the
depth and rigor of the development of key constructs which underpin
the framework, which are well grounded in theory, analysis and
reflective practice, including requirements development and im-
provement activities, requirements document templates, facilitation
of requirements management activity, tool support for requirements
engineering and management and training [2].
The decision framework consists of four interrelated key parts as
presented in Section 5. The decision framework serves the following
purposes in facilitating BIM adoption:
• To provide a structured approach to potential and willing BIM users
to understand and reflect on their work practice and current tool
capabilities in order to assess their readiness in BIM adoption.
• To create awareness about BIM applications and understand
potential usability in different project phases and activities.
• To allow potential BIM users to identify the likely conflicts and risks
that would have arisen due to the changes in work practice if they or
their project partners adopt BIM.
• To generate a reflective practice among industry players such that
the knowledge of available BIM applications allows them to
critically evaluate the applications and their impacts on the
industry, in order to provide useful feedback for BIM development
and integration.
• To facilitate the maturity of BIM applications through the above
industry feedback. This in turn will facilitate greater adoption of BIM
in practice.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks for the contributions provided on the CRC-CI
Collaboration Platform research project by Vishal Singh, Research
assistant, University of Newcastle, Australia and Claudelle Taylor,
Design Manager, Nexuspoint Solutions, Australia.
References
[1] AGC America. The Contractors Guide to BIM, http://iweb.agc.org/iweb/Purchase/
ProductDetail.aspx?Product_ code=2926.
[2] Y. Arayici, G. Ghassan Aouad, V. Ahmed, Requirements engineering for innovative
integrated ICT systems for the construction industry, Construction Innovation 5
(2005) 179–200.
[3] G. Aranda-Mena, R. Wakefield, Interoperability of building information — myth of
reality?, eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, , 2006,
pp. 127–133, London.
[4] Autodesk. Building Information Modeling in Practice (white paper), Autodesk
Building Industry Solutions, http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_in_prac-
tice.pdf.
[5] V. Bajzanac, Model based cost and energy performance estimation during
schematic design, Construction Informatics Digital Library, 2005.
[6] K. Bentley, B. Workman, Does The Building Industry Really Need to Start Over? A
Response from Bentley to Autodesk's BIM/Revit Proposal for the Future (white
paper), Bentley, 2003.
[7] Bentley News, ARUP wins 2006 BE Awards, , 2006 http://www.bentley.com/en-
US/Corporate/News/News+Archive/Quarter+3/Arup.htm.
[8] P.G. Bernstein, J.H. Pittman, Barriers to the Adoption of Building Information
Modeling in the Building Industry, Autodesk Building Solutions (white paper),
2004, http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/bim_barriers_ wp_mar05.pdf.
[9] D.A. Campbell, Building Information Modeling: The Web3D Application for AEC,
Proceedings of Web3D 2007, Perugia, Italy, 2006.
[10] CyonResearch, The Building Information Model, a Look at Graphisoft's Virtual
Building Concept (white paper), 2003 http://www.cyonresearch.com.
[11] C. Eastman, G. Lee, R. Sacks, Development of a Knowledge-Rich CAD System for
the North American Precast Concrete Industry, Proceedings of ACADIA 2004, Ball
State University, USA, 2004, pp. 208–215.
[12] B.A. Ellis, Building Information Modeling: An Informational Tool for Stakeholders,
2006.
999
[13] EPM Technology (2004). EXPRESS DATA MANAGER™, Information 1(6), http://
www.epmtech.jotne.com.
[14] M. Fischer, J. Kunz, The scope and role of information technology in construction,
Proceedings of JSCE 763 (2004) 1–8.
[15] Gehry Technologies. Construction Industries Transformation (brochure), Gehry
Technologies, http://www.gehrytechnologies.com.
[16] Graphisoft. A Strategy for Design, Construction and Management Services
Collaboration - Sharing Information Based on the Virtual BuildingTM and the
IFCTM Object Sharing Protocol (IFC brochure), Graphisoft.
[17] Greenway Consulting, Revolution and Achievement: New Practice and Business
Models Emerge in Study of Architecture, Design, and Real Estate, 2003, http://
images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/greenway_consulting_report. pdf.
[18] GSA, GSA Building Information Modeling Guide Series, , 2007 http://www.gsa.
gov/bim.
[19] J. Haymaker, M.C. Kam, M. Fischer, A Methodology to Plan, Communicate and
Control Multidisciplinary Design Processes, Construction Informatics Digital
Library, 2005.
[20] J. Haymaker, B. Suter, Communicating, Integrating and Improving Multidisciplin-
ary Design and Analysis Narratives, Proceedings of DDC'06, 2006.
[21] D.Holzer, Are You Talking To Me? Why BIM Alone Is Not The Answer?,
Proceedings of AASA 2007, Sydney, Australia, 2007.
[22] M.Ibrahim, R.Krawczyk, G.Schipporiet, A Web-based Approach to Transferring
Architectural Information to the Construction Site Based on the BIM Object
Concept, Proceedings of CAADRIA 2004, 2004.
[23] M.Ibrahim, R.Krawczyk, G.Schipporiet, Two Approaches to BIM: a Comparative
Study, Proceedings of eCAADe 2004, 2004.
[24] R.E.Johnson, E.S.Laepple, Digital Innovation and Organizational Change in Design
Practice (CRS Center Working Paper no. 2), 2003 CRS Center, Texas A&M
University.
[25] O. Kalny, Enterprise Wiki: An Emerging Technology to be Considered by the AEC
Industry, AECbytes Viewpoint 31, March 19, 2007, 2007.
[26] L.Khemlani, The IFC Building Model: A Look Under the Hood, AECbytes Feature,
March 30, 2004, , 2004, http://www.ae cbytes.com/feature/2004/IFCmodel.html.
[27] L. Khemlani, AEC Landscape and Technology Adoption in India, AECbytes
Newsletter, July, 2004, URL: http://www.aecbytes.com/newsletter/2004/
issue_12.html.
[28] L.Khemlani, BIM Symposium at the University of Minnesota, Building the Future,
AECbytes, February, 2006, http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2006/
BIM_Symposium.html.
[29] L.Khemlani, Supporting Technologies for BIM Exhibited at AIA 2007, Building the
Future, AECbytes, May, 2007, http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2007/
AIA2007_Part2.html.
[30] L.Khemlani, 2007 Third Annual BIM Awards Part 1, Building the Future, AECbytes,
August, 2007, http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2007/BIM_ Award-
s_Part1.html.
[31] L.Khemlani, 2007 Third Annual BIM Awards Part 2, Building the Future, AECbytes,
September, 2007, http://www.aecbytes.com/buildingthefuture/2007/BIM_
Awards_Part2.html.
[32] L.Khemlani, Top Criteria for BIM Solutions, A Survey Conducted by AECbytes, 2007
https://community.aeccom.com/v30/download/e977867ec69fc8fd/
cBs_57pzlVT2F P2WaT2_JVpUQ2QMn7_wqQAorqzuio8nJO8AVEDYkd9ZOc07Ir-
eC6Bk/AECbytesSurveyReport.pdf.
[33] G. Lee, R. Sacks, C.M. Eastman, Specifying Parametric Building Object Behavior
(BOB) for a building information modeling system, Automation in Construction
15 (2007) 758–776.
[34] Mitchell J., Wong J. and Plume J. (2007). Design Collaboration Using IFC, a Case
Study in Thermal Analysis, Proceedings of CAADFutures) 2007 (pp. 317-329),
Springer.
[35] Navisworks. JetStream V5 from Navisworks, http://www.navisworks.com.
[36] V. Peansupap, D. Walker, Exploratory factors influencing information and
communication technology diffusion and adoption within Australian construction
organizations: a micro analysis, Construction Innovation 5 (2005) 135–157.
[37] H. Pentilla, Early Architectural Design and BIM, Proceedings of CAADFutures 2007,
Springer, 2007, pp. 291–302.
[38] V. Popov, S. Mikalauskas, D. Migilinskas, P. Vainiunas, Complex Usage of 4D
Information Modelling Concept for Building Design, Estimation, Scheduling and
Determination of Effective Variant, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy 12 (2) (2006) 91–98.
[39] STATSBYGG (2006). Experiences in Development and Use of a Digital Building
Information Model (BIM) According to IFC Standards from the Building Project of
Tromsø University College (HITOS) after Completed Full Conceptual Design Phase
(report), R&D project no. 11251 Pilot project, Tromsø University College (HITOS)
for Testing IFC.
[40] R. Wakefield, G. Aranda-Mena, et al., Business Drivers For BIM, RMIT, Australia, ,
2007.
[41] A. Yassine, D. Braha, Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure
Matrix Method, Concurrent Engineering 11 (2003) 165–176.